Most people prefer to be called “he” or “she”. But others, like Kelsey, do not: they want to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns like “they”. Should you defer to Kelsey’s preferences? Many people think no. Some, like University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, have recently garnered celebrity status by taking a stance against gender-neutral pronouns: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them,” Peterson has said. His view is common among socialconservatives.

We think people should not use gender-specific pronouns for genderqueer people – people that do not identify as men or as women. We can start here: why should we use some words, rather than others, to refer to people?

A common answer among the left is because we should respect people’s preferences. If you’re talking about Kelsey, you should use whatever pronouns Kelsey prefers, and Kelsey prefers “they”.

Don't call me baby: the birth of the gender-neutral ‘theyby’

Read more

Many on the right believe this is dogmatic. After all, many people prefer not to use “they” for Kelsey. Whose preferences matter more? From conservatives’ perspective, liberals just assume that Kelsey’s preferences matter more than theirs, and do so in the service of a political agenda.

Is that assumption misguided? Consider an analogy. As a Muslim civil rights leader, Muhammad Ali rejected the name he was given at birth (Cassius Clay) because it represented a Christian identity that he rejected. He instead chose the name Ali. But others preferred to use Clay. Whose preferences matter more? We think the answer is clear. Ali’s identity is what’s at issue, so his preferences matter more.

Why should we use some words, rather than others, to refer to people?

But maybe you think there is more to say about why conservatives’ preferences matter. Many on the far right rally around the mantra “There are only two genders!”. They apparently believe that calling Kelsey “they” would affirm that Kelsey is not a man or a woman – an idea they flatly reject. Peterson makes this point in exaggerated fashion, refusing to be an “ideological puppet”, or a “mouthpiece of some murderous ideology”.

Here the debate typically turns to whether it is right that there are only two genders. But even if we granted this point, the argument fails. Perhaps people should not be “bullied” into affirming identities that they reject. But this does not give anyone the right to deny those identities.

This point is important because of something the usual rhetoric around pronouns obscures: gender-neutral pronouns are gender-neutral. “They” does not communicate that Kelsey is genderqueer in the way that “he” would communicate that Kelsey is a man or “she” would communicate that Kelsey is a woman. “They” refrains from ascribing a particular gender to Kelsey. This is why “they” is often used in colloquial English as a singular gender-neutral pronoun for people who probably aren’t genderqueer. (“Who is at the door?” “Dunno – go see what they want.”) “They” is often used this way, and has been used this way since the Shakespearean era. It’s nothing new. (Note that even Peterson uses singular “they” in an earlier quote.)

Conservatives think they should not be forced to affirm that Kelsey is non-binary. But “they” does not affirm that Kelsey is any particular gender; it just avoids saying anything about Kelsey’s gender. As long as Kelsey should not be ascribed a gender they reject, we should not use “he” or “she” for Kelsey. We can all respect Kelsey without anyone being “bullied” into being a mouthpiece for any ideology.

To our mind, everything else in this debate is a distraction. The far right defends their devotion to “he” and “she” by appealing to freedom of speech. But freedom of speech at most gives us “a right to do wrong”. Arguably, freedom of speech may give you a legal right to use racial slurs. But it doesn’t make it right to use racial slurs. Exercising a right to do wrong is still a way of doing something wrong. The same goes for using “he” or “she” for those who prefer otherwise: even if freedom of speech gives you a legal right to do so, it is still wrong.

Appeals to grammaticality are similar. Many opposed to gender-neutral pronouns claim that singular use of “they” is “non-standard” English; the National Review decries “stupid people” engaged in an “asinine effort” to “de-pluralize ‘they’”. The sentence “They are my good friend” may strike you as ungrammatical. But notice that we say things like “You are my good friend” with ease. Using “they” as a singular or plural third-person pronoun is no different from how we already use “you” as a singular or plural second-person pronoun.

More importantly, just as we recognize the distinction between morality and law, we should recognize a distinction between morality and grammar. Doing what is morally right sometimes requires challenging legal rules. Why should grammatical rules be different?

We should focus on what matters: whether and why we should (not) use particular pronouns. It is wrong to use pronouns that deny someone’s identity. This is enough to see why we should use gender-neutral pronouns for non-binary people. In fact, once we see the virtues of using a gender-neutral pronoun like “they” for some people, maybe we should just use “they” for everyone.

Robin Dembroff is an assistant professor of philosophy at Yale University and a public voices fellow with the OpEd Project. Daniel Wodak is an assistant professor of philosophy at Virginia Tech